PDA

View Full Version : Aspect ratio of 10x8 and 5x4?



DannyTreacy
9-Oct-2019, 07:31
Hi all,

Quick question, I’m using a 35mm dslr and iPad to do lighting tests before using my large format cameras.

Obviously the frame proportion is different on the 35mm dslr so I wanted to set the cropping function on my camera/iPad.

Could someone please let me know the aspect ratio of 10x8 and 5x4 (I imagine they’re both the same??). I’ve tried 3:4 and 4:5 and both look promising but it’d be good to know which is correct. Thanks

Corran
9-Oct-2019, 07:50
Uh, 4:5...

Think about it...

DannyTreacy
9-Oct-2019, 08:13
Uh, 4:5...

Think about it...

Thanks for providing probably the most unhelpful reply I’ve received it several years of using this forum!

Let’s hope someone with some useful and informative feedback replies...

Oren Grad
9-Oct-2019, 08:19
Danny, the definition of aspect ratio just is the proportion between height and width (or width and height, you can specify it either way so long as you're clear about which approach you're using and whether you're talking about horizontal or vertical orientation). So by definition, the aspect ratio of 4x5 is 4:5, and 8x10 is 8:10, which is the same thing as 4:5.

Corran
9-Oct-2019, 08:32
Thanks for providing probably the most unhelpful reply I’ve received it several years of using this forum!

Let’s hope someone with some useful and informative feedback replies...

Actually, I answered your question, and in fact was rather restrained in my post. I could've been derisive, but I was not.

Tin Can
9-Oct-2019, 10:16
My Nikon D800 had 5:4 aspect ratio crop available.

I sold that camera, perhaps other Nikons have it, my D750 does not and I miss it.

djdister
9-Oct-2019, 16:58
how about reducing it down - an aspect ratio of 1:1.25
it's pretty close to a square 1:1 ratio

Larry Gebhardt
9-Oct-2019, 17:39
Look at the image opening of your film holders and divide the length by the width. For 4x5 it’s about 1.266 (4.75 / 3.75) and I think 8x10 is about the same border size so just slightly lower at 1.258. Both are close enough to 5/4 or 1.25 that you probably should just use that.

unityofsaints
9-Oct-2019, 19:46
Calm down folks. This is not as straightforward of a question as you might think - both 4x5 and 8x10 have dead areas on the borders due to how film holders work, this could easily change the aspect ratio (it just so happens that it doesn't).

jose angel
10-Oct-2019, 00:40
Funny, this has reminded me that long ago in NY I asked to a B&H seller for a 4x5 camera. He seriously looked at me and said: "Hmmm, I don't understand you... What is a 4x5 camera? Maybe you want to mean a 5x4 (emphasis) camera, isn't it???"

In the US, people name it this way, while in e.g., Europe, many people used to call them a 9x12 camera (note the smaller side first) most of the times followed by a tag line, "... well... or 4x5 (small side first) which is the same thing" (which obviously is not!).
(Excuse me... I'm going over old times once again... :D)

afxstudio
10-Oct-2019, 01:48
Funny, this has reminded me that long ago in NY I asked to a B&H seller for a 4x5 camera. He seriously looked at me and said: "Hmmm, I don't understand you... What is a 4x5 camera? Maybe you want to mean a 5x4 (emphasis) camera, isn't it???"
In the US, people name it this way, while in e.g., Europe, many people used to call them a 9x12 camera (note the smaller side first) most of the times followed by a tag line, "... well... or 4x5 (small side first) which is the same thing" (which obviously is not!).
(Excuse me... I'm going over old times once again... :D)

In Europe, or wherever the metric system is used, it's actually also known as 10x12 (cm), you can also read it on the label of some film packages such as Kodak's.
Though, many LF photographers including me still prefer to call it 4x5.

Tin Can
10-Oct-2019, 05:24
Perhaps OP ? is actually

Are 4X5 and 5X4 the same

They are, but typically the ratio IS reversed to show EU and USA sourcing

3X4 nominal is different and usually shorthand for 3-1/4 X 4-1/4. 'Nominal' usage is very confusing. I hate the word often used by engineers to sound like they know something we don't. I used to teach engineers real world applications.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nominal

Vaughn
10-Oct-2019, 09:48
Thanks for providing probably the most unhelpful reply I’ve received it several years of using this forum!

Let’s hope someone with some useful and informative feedback replies...

Fortunately you got the best answer right off the bat.

Taking into consideration the film's rebate is not needed in this instance. A bigger challenge, but not difficult, will be matching up the view of the DSLR with the lens of the view camera. Do DSLRs viewfinders 'see' 100% of what goes hits the sensor...or is it less as in the film SLRs? (Which also changed with brand/model of SLRs)

DonJ
10-Oct-2019, 11:50
Thanks for providing probably the most unhelpful reply I’ve received it several years of using this forum!

Let’s hope someone with some useful and informative feedback replies...

Maybe you could explain why 4:5 isn't the answer? is it the masking of the film edges by the film holder? If not, what are you taking into account that would change the ratio of a 4x5 camera to something other than its stated ratio?

Ken Lee
12-Oct-2019, 20:24
Hi all,

Quick question, I’m using a 35mm dslr and iPad to do lighting tests before using my large format cameras.

Obviously the frame proportion is different on the 35mm dslr so I wanted to set the cropping function on my camera/iPad.

Could someone please let me know the aspect ratio of 10x8 and 5x4 (I imagine they’re both the same??). I’ve tried 3:4 and 4:5 and both look promising but it’d be good to know which is correct. Thanks

You might find these two brief articles helpful:


Traditional Aspect Ratio on Full-Frame Sensors (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#Traditional)

Hoodman Loupe for Viewing Cropped Aspect Ratio in Bright Light (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#loupe)

BradS
13-Oct-2019, 12:23
...
3X4 nominal is different and usually shorthand for 3-1/4 X 4-1/4. 'Nominal' usage is very confusing. I hate the word often used by engineers to sound like they know something we don't. I used to teach engineers real world applications.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nominal

Seems like a perfect example of defintion #3. No?

DannyTreacy
13-Oct-2019, 12:41
Maybe you could explain why 4:5 isn't the answer? is it the masking of the film edges by the film holder? If not, what are you taking into account that would change the ratio of a 4x5 camera to something other than its stated ratio?

I didn’t say it wasn’t the right answer, I said it was unhelpful. It assumed the answer was obvious, the very fact I asked the question illustrated it wasn’t obvious to me, so the answer was dumb, as dumb as replying ’duh’ in a post. What is this obsession with ’duh’? It’s not actually a word, it merely illustrates ignorance, as does referring to 10x8 as 8x10 as this post has illustrated.

The basic and fundamental purpose of forums is supposed to be the sharing of knowledge, the original response to my question had none of that, it illustrated ignorance alone.

Corran
13-Oct-2019, 12:50
Perhaps you can explain why you didn't think 4x5 or 8x10 film had an aspect ratio of 4:5. That continues to be fairly obvious unless one wants to really split hairs about a couple extra millimeters from the film holder blockage. And I doubt many would say the aspect ratio was 23:30 or something like that.

PS: I didn't say 'duh.'

Vaughn
13-Oct-2019, 13:10
And it goes both ways -- one who asks the question has to be willing to take the answers graciously...a difficult task at times. But your question asks about ratios, you seemed to have had some understanding of ratios from the way you asked the question, but the question itself belied that assumed knowledge. That led to a unsatisfactory answer for you. A more straight forward answer would have been, "4:5 is the ratio of the film's format and that is what you should set on your computer/camera/whatever." But that answer was heavily implied by the answer you received and the poster was hoping to point you in that direction, rather than lead you by the nose.

Have you thought about getting the lens of the DSLR to match the 4x5's lens yet? I suppose a side-by-side comparison would be the quick and easy way to go, with a zoom lens on the DSLR camera making it even easier.

Corran
13-Oct-2019, 13:25
And it goes both ways -- one who asks the question has to be willing to take the answers graciously...a difficult task at times. But your question asks about ratios, you seemed to have had some understanding of ratios from the way you asked the question, but the question itself belied that assumed knowledge. That led to a unsatisfactory answer for you. A more straight forward answer would have been, "4:5 is the ratio of the film's format and that is what you should set on your computer/camera/whatever." But that answer was heavily implied by the answer you received and the poster was hoping to point you in that direction, rather than lead you by the nose.

Have you thought about getting the lens of the DSLR to match the 4x5's lens yet? I suppose a side-by-side comparison would be the quick and easy way to go, with a zoom lens on the DSLR camera making it even easier.

Yes, thank you Vaughn.

Regarding the DSLR lens - if one wants the same view, divide the ~96mm short end of 4x5 by the 24mm short end of the DSLR sensor (that's on full-frame, if APS-C then 16mm) and then divide your 4x5 lens of choice by that number to get your equivalent focal length.

So if you have a 150mm lens on your 4x5, divide that by [96/24] to get 37.5mm (or 25mm if on APS-C). So roughly a 35mm lens on full-frame or 24mm lens on APS-C would be the same once set to 4:5.

BrianShaw
13-Oct-2019, 13:37
Life gets a lot better when you can laugh at yourself every once in a while. :)

Tin Can
13-Oct-2019, 13:39
Solitude

BY ELLA WHEELER WILCOX

Laugh, and the world laughs with you;
Weep, and you weep alone;
For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.
Sing, and the hills will answer;
Sigh, it is lost on the air;
The echoes bound to a joyful sound,
But shrink from voicing care.

Rejoice, and men will seek you;
Grieve, and they turn and go;
They want full measure of all your pleasure,
But they do not need your woe.
Be glad, and your friends are many;
Be sad, and you lose them all,—
There are none to decline your nectared wine,
But alone you must drink life’s gall.

Feast, and your halls are crowded;
Fast, and the world goes by.
Succeed and give, and it helps you live,
But no man can help you die.
There is room in the halls of pleasure
For a large and lordly train,
But one by one we must all file on
Through the narrow aisles of pain.

BrianShaw
13-Oct-2019, 14:02
Amen

DonJ
14-Oct-2019, 19:15
I didn’t say it wasn’t the right answer, I said it was unhelpful. It assumed the answer was obvious, the very fact I asked the question illustrated it wasn’t obvious to me, so the answer was dumb, as dumb as replying ’duh’ in a post. What is this obsession with ’duh’? It’s not actually a word, it merely illustrates ignorance, as does referring to 10x8 as 8x10 as this post has illustrated.

The basic and fundamental purpose of forums is supposed to be the sharing of knowledge, the original response to my question had none of that, it illustrated ignorance alone.

Referring to 10x8 as 8x10 illustrates ignorance? Wow, I had no idea.

If I encounter a “How long is a yardstick?” thread, I’ll probably just take a pass.

goamules
15-Oct-2019, 09:52
Yep, as I used to say when doing training, "there are no stupid questions....only stupid people."
In jest of course.

Jerry Bodine
15-Oct-2019, 10:10
...If I encounter a “How long is a yardstick?” thread, I’ll probably just take a pass.

My wife has a wooden "stick" that has a 48" long scale; it has a logo imprinted and is labeled a yardstick. :rolleyes:

Doremus Scudder
15-Oct-2019, 11:01
Just for clarification: The British like to designate their cameras' aspect ratios with the long side first, e.g., 5x4 or 10x8. We North Americans and most of the rest of Europe like the small side first, e.g., 9x12 or 5x7. Once that's clear, there should be no confusion and no name calling when someone uses a system that one is not familiar with.

FWIW, when I keep my printing records, I always indicate my print aspect ratios with the horizontal side first. That makes it easy to recognize from the record if the print is portrait or landscape orientation (e.g., 10x13 for portrait, 13x10 for landscape). Maybe the Brits think of their film in landscape and we 'mericans think in portrait? :)

Best,

Doremus

Vaughn
15-Oct-2019, 15:19
A yard stick is one you pick up in your yard to hit your brother with.

djdister
15-Oct-2019, 15:43
After all the answers (the good, the bad and the ugly), did the original poster get an answer that helped, or did he derive the answer to his own question? I'd really like to know.

Peter Mounier
15-Oct-2019, 16:24
I have an artist friend who told me that the vertical should be stated first, followed by the horizontal (in U.S.) That got me wondering whether there is an actual "standard" used by museums and libraries, so I wrote to the Library of Congress and checked the websites of several prestigious museums. They all verified what my friend said. The Library of Congress wrote me a very nice and informative reply. They said the forwarded my question to the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, who followed up with this ...

"The guidelines our catalogers follow are from a standard produced here at the Library of Congress called "Graphic Materials: Rules for Describing Original Items and Historical Collections." We make available as a pdf the 1997 edition "Graphic Materials" at: <http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/gm/GraMatWP8.pdf >. On page 49, the basic rule is for dimensions is:

"3D2.1. Generally, the statement of dimension shows the height x
width. The side for height and the side for width are determined
with reference to the position in which the image would be viewed.
Height is always expressed first.

[example]: 1 drawing ; 18 x 14 cm."

The rules have been updated since 1997 (a list of the updates is given on this page: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/gm/graphmat.html>.

Most recently, our catalogers have been working with other institutions on a new descriptive standard that is in the final stages of preparation, "DCRM(G)," which stands for "Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphics)." A glimpse of what the work entails is available online through their wiki: <http://dcrmg.pbworks.com/w/page/6108102/FrontPage>. I'm not sure whether the rules for providing dimensions have changed much--it didn't appear so from my look at a printout of a recent draft."





Just for clarification: The British like to designate their cameras' aspect ratios with the long side first, e.g., 5x4 or 10x8. We North Americans and most of the rest of Europe like the small side first, e.g., 9x12 or 5x7. Once that's clear, there should be no confusion and no name calling when someone uses a system that one is not familiar with.

FWIW, when I keep my printing records, I always indicate my print aspect ratios with the horizontal side first. That makes it easy to recognize from the record if the print is portrait or landscape orientation (e.g., 10x13 for portrait, 13x10 for landscape). Maybe the Brits think of their film in landscape and we 'mericans think in portrait? :)

Best,

Doremus

Corran
15-Oct-2019, 16:28
Peter, that's very interesting. I've wondered about that.

In LF sheet film, does Europe have the sizes printed on the box as 5x4 or whatever? My 4x5 comes as marked:

https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Kodak_8438202_TMY_4053_4_x_1549886116_545368.jpg

keith schreiber
15-Oct-2019, 18:05
On a related note, at the museum I worked at back in the '90s, the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, dimensions were (and still are) always recorded in the format Height x Width, which I think is pretty much standard practice throughout the museum/gallery world, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

Banquet camera formats — 7x17, 8x20, 12x20 — which are usually but not always used in horizontal orientation, and are typically referred to by HxW.

We, of course, can use whatever scheme we prefer. ;)

As for aspect ratios, 10x8 = 8x10 & 5x4 = 4x5, and both are 4:5 or 5:4 if you prefer.

Keith

Vaughn
15-Oct-2019, 19:51
And some industries go by width x height. It's a mess.

BrianShaw
15-Oct-2019, 20:17
Peter, that's very interesting. I've wondered about that.

In LF sheet film, does Europe have the sizes printed on the box as 5x4 or whatever? My 4x5 comes as marked:

https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Kodak_8438202_TMY_4053_4_x_1549886116_545368.jpg

Same with my Ilford film.

Peter Mounier
16-Oct-2019, 09:00
It makes sense that for unexposed film we can say it either way, since there is nothing to describe at that point. Perhaps, they established a standard because that's what bureaucracies do. And it probably saves them countless hours and who knows how much paper if they don't have to spell out vertical or horizontal for every image in their catalogue.

BrianShaw
16-Oct-2019, 09:29
It really doesn’t matter yet it seems to come up periodically as almost a major international incident.

cowanw
16-Oct-2019, 10:24
How does one know the height of the film or paper until after you take the picture in portrait or landscape view? wouldn't a box of unexposed film have a mixture of 8x10 and 10x8.

BrianShaw
16-Oct-2019, 12:20
Yes... that is very confusing. What’s worse is that they put the notch code in the same place no matter which format the film is. I’d think they’d at least be courteous enough to mark portrait and landscape sheets different

Vaughn
16-Oct-2019, 14:04
Seems like most sheet film boxes are printed to be viewed in portrait mode. Do they make any boxes for landscape mode?

jose angel
17-Oct-2019, 00:30
So... it was not my lack of talent!!! A lifetime taking landscape photos with the paper in the wrong orientation... that explains why they were all so bad!!!! :p

Doremus Scudder
17-Oct-2019, 11:31
How does one know the height of the film or paper until after you take the picture in portrait or landscape view? wouldn't a box of unexposed film have a mixture of 8x10 and 10x8.

Actually, the sheets in a box, and later in the filmholder, are in a state of quantum flux, neither portrait or landscape until the conscious mind of the photographer decides how to insert the holder. Only then does the state of uncertainty collapse and the film become "real." Schrödinger proved this, no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem.

120 film without a camera is in an even worse state of uncertainty: 6:4.5, 6:6, 6:7, 6:9, 6:17... portrait or landscape...

And, is it really black-and-white photography? Why not white-and-black? Or Fifty Shades of Grey? Or...?

:)

Doremus

Alan Klein
17-Oct-2019, 13:19
I believe that whether your DSLR 35mm says 4:5 or 5:4, the longer end is always the horizontal top and bottom sides with the camera in normal landscape position. So you have to consider that when shooting film in landscape or portrait mode which way to turn your DSLR.

BrianShaw
17-Oct-2019, 13:58
Actually, the sheets in a box, and later in the filmholder, are in a state of quantum flux, neither portrait or landscape until the conscious mind of the photographer decides how to insert the holder. Only then does the state of uncertainty collapse and the film become "real." Schrödinger proved this, no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem.

120 film without a camera is in an even worse state of uncertainty: 6:4.5, 6:6, 6:7, 6:9, 6:17... portrait or landscape...

And, is it really black-and-white photography? Why not white-and-black? Or Fifty Shades of Grey? Or...?

:)

Doremus
Now I completely understanding!

cowanw
17-Oct-2019, 14:35
Actually, the sheets in a box, and later in the filmholder, are in a state of quantum flux, neither portrait or landscape until the conscious mind of the photographer decides how to insert the holder. Only then does the state of uncertainty collapse and the film become "real." Schrödinger proved this, no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem.

120 film without a camera is in an even worse state of uncertainty: 6:4.5, 6:6, 6:7, 6:9, 6:17... portrait or landscape...

And, is it really black-and-white photography? Why not white-and-black? Or Fifty Shades of Grey? Or...?

:)

Doremus

Except Schrödinger' cat, whether alive or dead when he proposed the experiment, is absolutely certainly dead now, as cats don't live 84 years.

Jerry Bodine
17-Oct-2019, 16:29
Maybe what's needed is a new standard to define the format using two values, e.g., the length of the format short side in inches (U.S.) or cm (Europe) & the angle (degrees) that the format diagonal makes with short side. 4x5 would then be defined as 4" x 51.3deg (4" x tangent51.3 = 5"). 8x10 would be defined as 8" x 51.3deg (8" x tangent51.3 = 10").:rolleyes:

DonJ
17-Oct-2019, 17:11
Maybe what's needed is a new standard to define the format using two values, e.g., the length of the format short side in inches (U.S.) or cm (Europe) & the angle (degrees) that the format diagonal makes with short side. 4x5 would then be defined as 4" x 51.3deg (4" x tangent51.3 = 5"). 8x10 would be defined as 8" x 51.3deg (8" x tangent51.3 = 10").:rolleyes:

You mean 5” x 38.7deg.

Greg
17-Oct-2019, 17:31
And some industries go by width x height. It's a mess.

Attended R.I.T. in the late 1970s. 4x5 was 4x5 and 8x10 was 8x10. The nomenclature of 10x8 or 5x4 was actually criticized... but was never told why.

Jerry Bodine
17-Oct-2019, 22:08
You mean 5” x 38.7deg.

That works as well, but it would more likely be cm not inches. :D

esearing
18-Oct-2019, 04:10
Is Schrodinger's cat even still in the box? What if you want to crop 4x5 (1:1.25) so that the ratio mimics 5x7 (1:1.4) or that format Mr Galli likes 7x11 (1:1.57) . Would you pass on the shot or take a few steps back/forward to make sure you have the scene to work with?

Alan Klein
18-Oct-2019, 17:54
I don't develop my own film, but send it out. So, I'm wondering. How do you develop 8x10 film in a 10x8 tray? Do you do half first than the other half? Or do you rotate the tray? :confused:

Vaughn
18-Oct-2019, 19:01
I don't develop my own film, but send it out. So, I'm wondering. How do you develop 8x10 film in a 10x8 tray? Do you do half first than the other half? Or do you rotate the tray? :confused:

One doesn't -- for even tray development, sheet film should be processed in trays at least the next size up. So you can do the 8x10 sheets in a 14x11 tray with no problems.

keith schreiber
18-Oct-2019, 21:40
So you can do the 8x10 sheets in a 14x11 tray with no problems.

10x8 too! You can even do them together in the same tray. ;)

ic-racer
19-Oct-2019, 08:44
I always buy 8x10 labeled film. Once I got some 10x8 film which I will never do again. I was able to get it into my 8x10 film holders by rotating the film holders 90 degrees, and fortunately my Shen-Hao has a rotating back, so I was able to slide the film holders in from the top to take pictures. However, when it came to processing the film, I found out the film was 2 inches too wide to roll up and fit into my 3005 Jobo Expert drum...

I also ran into the same issue as the original poster, my iPhone only has 4:5 aspect ratio for checking composition! The phone won't show 5:4!!

linhofbiker
19-Oct-2019, 13:13
Another wrinkle in the subject matter, when trying to match the field of view and/or aspect ration between a 4x5 and/or 5x4 camera to the view thru the viewfinder of a DSLR the image recorded on the DSLR's sensor may be different, usually larger. My Sony A850's viewfinder shows about 95% of the sensors image whereas the Sony A900 had a 100% viewfinder. Most DSLR viewfinders are not 100% as far as I know.

Alan Klein
19-Oct-2019, 17:41
Another wrinkle in the subject matter, when trying to match the field of view and/or aspect ration between a 4x5 and/or 5x4 camera to the view thru the viewfinder of a DSLR the image recorded on the DSLR's sensor may be different, usually larger. My Sony A850's viewfinder shows about 95% of the sensors image whereas the Sony A900 had a 100% viewfinder. Most DSLR viewfinders are not 100% as far as I know.

Since you only see 95% of the scene, what do you do with the white borders that are left? :)

linhofbiker
19-Oct-2019, 18:58
Since you only see 95% of the scene, what do you do with the white borders that are left? :)

Since the image formed by the pentaprism is less than that recorded by the sensor there is no white border only a little more image field recorded at the sensor. So what you see is not completely what you get, unless of course you are using a DSLR with 100% viewfinder like the Sony A900.

Corran
19-Oct-2019, 19:03
Most "pro-sumer" and higher digital cameras these days have 100% viewfinders. And you still see what you get on the screen after shooting on those older/lesser models, or in live view mode. If it is that much of a concern, one could factor in the % in their calculations of equivalencies.

Regarding the original question, I'm honestly not sure why one needs perfect 100% equivalency for lighting tests though. There's always the ground-glass and modeling lights...or perhaps some Instax? :)

Joe O'Hara
20-Oct-2019, 14:17
I was wondering how this thread went on for six pages.

Now I know.

Jim Noel
20-Oct-2019, 14:20
I'm still wondering.

Ron (Netherlands)
20-Oct-2019, 15:05
I was wondering how this thread went on for six pages.

Now I know.

Lets go on ... really a nice theme ...to talk about aspect ratio(s)....
Well I don't have the film for my full plate camera yet (and probably won't get it in the near future) but I - think - I like the aspect ratio of full (whole) plate the best.....
...but therefore mostly use still 2x3


...and always puzzled to read that someone apparently gets annoyed because he doesn't understand the answer served to him....

Alan Klein
20-Oct-2019, 17:13
Well, I don;t think we even started to discuss regular print paper ratios and how they differ from TV;s monitors and cameras. Then there film vs. digital sensor camera sizes. We could go on for another 12 pages.

alt.kafka
28-Oct-2019, 05:32
My Nikon D800 had 5:4 aspect ratio crop available.

I sold that camera, perhaps other Nikons have it, my D750 does not and I miss it.

Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

Tin Can
28-Oct-2019, 05:56
Good points Alan!

Paper IS odd sized

Plate sizes are actually derived from some distant standard that I have read, but have forgotten, in my old age, which is relative, some are old when young

Some Forum members expect all to research every aspect before speaking/writing

Not so social...however at least obvious anger/hatred is almost gone...

I get snide comments for posting TOO MUCH, but also get PM's that like what I do

YMMV


Well, I don;t think we even started to discuss regular print paper ratios and how they differ from TV;s monitors and cameras. Then there film vs. digital sensor camera sizes. We could go on for another 12 pages.

DonJ
28-Oct-2019, 06:32
Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

"Every conceivable" ratio would be quite a list. My DSLR gives me a choice of four that are fairly useful: 3:2 (the aspect ratio of the full sensor), 4:3, 16:9, and 1:1. They should add 5:4.

Alan Klein
28-Oct-2019, 18:03
Why DSLR's don't allow you to predefine your own aspect ratios is beyond me. Or at least, have every conceivable normal aspect ratio. It's not like there's any actual technology to it. Yes, you can do it manually. But the entire point of a digital camera is convenience.

Actually it is important to shoot the format you intend to use later in the camera rather than just relying on cropping to the format in post. Determining the best crop and framing is easier to see in the camera. You won't cut off heads and limbs.

For example, I often shoot 16:9 because I make slide shows to match the 16:9 ratio of the TV. I use to shoot 4:3. But then found I was getting wrong perspectives when cropping to 16:9. Aesthetic consideration went out the window. So I bit the bullet and set my camera to 16:9. At first, it was a little weird to compose to 16:9. But after a one outing, composing to 16:9 became natural, no less so to anyone who uses a cell phone set to full display. The brain automatically adjust to set the best aesthetic regardless of the format. Another advantage was the 16:9 stills match the 16:9 video clips format as well. It allows you to fill up the screen for monitors and cellphones as well as TV's as well.

These were all shot in 16:9. There was some subsequent cropping in post with a few of them. But the original 16:9 view in the camera determined the best capture of the scene for each picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM&t=77s

Jim Jones
29-Oct-2019, 06:59
Most of my 20,000 Kodachromes were composed in 3:2 format for projection. A few were composed in more pleasing formats for prints. Fortunately, after acquiring a darkroom, I began allowing for some cropping in B&W negatives for the diverse aspect ratios of prints. It is presumptuous to assume as we snap the shutter that we may never present that image in any other format. Of course we can precisely compose in the camera for what seems to be the ideal format at the moment, and take an additional shot with looser cropping for the unforeseen future.

Tin Can
29-Oct-2019, 07:33
Does any software offer fake irregular rebates from fake LF holders?

My real rebates are often lopsided and I seldom include them, making not 4x5 or 8X10...exactly...

I'm sure a PS whiz can make a template/mask/layer, no thank you

Rubylith is not fake...

alt.kafka
1-Nov-2019, 16:56
Actually it is important to shoot the format you intend to use later in the camera rather than just relying on cropping to the format in post. Determining the best crop and framing is easier to see in the camera. You won't cut off heads and limbs.

For example, I often shoot 16:9 because I make slide shows to match the 16:9 ratio of the TV. I use to shoot 4:3. But then found I was getting wrong perspectives when cropping to 16:9. Aesthetic consideration went out the window. So I bit the bullet and set my camera to 16:9. At first, it was a little weird to compose to 16:9. But after a one outing, composing to 16:9 became natural, no less so to anyone who uses a cell phone set to full display. The brain automatically adjust to set the best aesthetic regardless of the format. Another advantage was the 16:9 stills match the 16:9 video clips format as well. It allows you to fill up the screen for monitors and cellphones as well as TV's as well.

These were all shot in 16:9. There was some subsequent cropping in post with a few of them. But the original 16:9 view in the camera determined the best capture of the scene for each picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM&t=77s

I do this all the time, where I can. The less I have to do later, the better. There's one moment of creation, where I'm there, responding to the environment, making a judgement about the framing, thinking about how I want to show it. Even if I intend on doing processing later, like HDR or whatever, I can't really previsualize a crop very well. I'll always try to make the picture look right through the viewfinder.

I suspect, though, that's just kind of an old habit of shooting. Really, with digital, you almost don't need a zoom lens. Just shoot wide and plan on cropping. Heck, bracket everything by 1/3 stop, while we're at it. But still, I wish the feature were more flexible. It wouldn't kill Nikon to give me the just the most common aspect ratios.

Alan Klein
1-Nov-2019, 17:38
I do this all the time, where I can. The less I have to do later, the better. There's one moment of creation, where I'm there, responding to the environment, making a judgement about the framing, thinking about how I want to show it. Even if I intend on doing processing later, like HDR or whatever, I can't really previsualize a crop very well. I'll always try to make the picture look right through the viewfinder.

I suspect, though, that's just kind of an old habit of shooting. Really, with digital, you almost don't need a zoom lens. Just shoot wide and plan on cropping. Heck, bracket everything by 1/3 stop, while we're at it. But still, I wish the feature were more flexible. It wouldn't kill Nikon to give me the just the most common aspect ratios.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Why? On the one hand you say "...I can;t really previsualize a crop very well..." I agree. If I'm shooting 4:3, and just try to get everything in there for later cropping to 16:9, it often won;t work. Tops and bottoms get cut off and suddenly I find my subject without shoes. :) Sure you can shoot wide angle to catch more of the scene so it can be cropped properly later. But wide angle has its own distortions. Additionally, I tend to just take the first shot figuring I caught everything I need for later adjustments. Then I find I was standing in the wrong place. That I caught stuff I didn't want or from the wrong angle, problems that you would have noticed if you shot at the format you intend to use later. Trust yourself. Getting it right in the camera, is the right approach.

Nikon should give us these alternative aspect ratios in the camera for another reason. Why should a camera company make software companies richer? Why give them the edge? Why cede technology to the Adobes of the world? Leica has a B/W digital camera that only shoots BW. I believe they;re coming out with another BW only with around 46mb or more. They're not ceding to the PS's who can change color shots to BW. They're charging $5000+ for a BW camera only and people are lining up for it. Damn the software companies is their motto.

Nigel Smith
1-Nov-2019, 19:24
Think about it...

Reminds me of something that happened many years ago.. like about 25! I was racing sprint karts and a mate and I were standing near the grid observing nothing in particular and chatting. A young bloke comes over and asks if we could give him a push (this was back in the days when that was how you started your kart which was difficult by yourself and frowned upon on the grid on race day). We say no worries. We saunter over and get behind the kart ready to give him a shove. My mate gives me a nudge and points to this kids rear sprocket which is covered in grease all the way to the axle (you need to lubricate the chain every time you take it on the track). My mate asks the kid why he's got all the grease on he sprocket, and he replies "think about it". He didn't give us his theory but we had a laugh about it for many years, mainly due to the delivery of the answer. We very much doubted that what he was probably trying to achieve, having the grease work it's way to the chain would have worked, and in reality it would have fung it all off the moment the kart took off.

alt.kafka
2-Nov-2019, 06:35
You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Why? On the one hand you say "...I can;t really previsualize a crop very well..." I agree. If I'm shooting 4:3, and just try to get everything in there for later cropping to 16:9, it often won;t work. Tops and bottoms get cut off and suddenly I find my subject without shoes. :) Sure you can shoot wide angle to catch more of the scene so it can be cropped properly later. But wide angle has its own distortions. Additionally, I tend to just take the first shot figuring I caught everything I need for later adjustments. Then I find I was standing in the wrong place. That I caught stuff I didn't want or from the wrong angle, problems that you would have noticed if you shot at the format you intend to use later. Trust yourself. Getting it right in the camera, is the right approach.

Nikon should give us these alternative aspect ratios in the camera for another reason. Why should a camera company make software companies richer? Why give them the edge? Why cede technology to the Adobes of the world? Leica has a B/W digital camera that only shoots BW. I believe they;re coming out with another BW only with around 46mb or more. They're not ceding to the PS's who can change color shots to BW. They're charging $5000+ for a BW camera only and people are lining up for it. Damn the software companies is their motto.

What I'm pointing out is the ironic selectivity of what they put in digital cameras today.

On one hand, there're relatively simple technology that would help me make a run time creative decision, on which manufacturers are just weirdly rigid or arbitrary. This includes things like aspect ratio.

On the other hand, they routinely throw in automation that directly minimizes the need to make a decision. A D750 will bracket up to 9 frames, so you don't even need to get exposure right.

I love digital, but sometimes I find the set of features on a camera to be arbitrary. They'll do an HDR merge in the camera now, but if I want an exact 6x7 crop I have to bring it into Lightroom. I'm much more likely to do the crop than the HDR. Heck, I can already crop in camera post exposure. Just let me set the aspect ratio the way I want for shooting.

Mike in NY
1-Dec-2019, 10:12
Here's a purely neutral response to the OP with no subtle, implied or overt commentary:

An aspect ratio can be expressed in several ways.

As the number of measured units in length to the number of measured units in width. Therefore, a 10x8 (inch) negative or print has an aspect ratio of 10:8.

However, some people like to express ratios as the smallest possible whole number on both sides of the colon. In this case, 10:8 is the same aspect ratio as 5:4.

Then again, some people like to express ratios as the number "1" to the left of the colon, in relation to a decimal (or fraction). Therefore 5:4 would be the same aspect ratio 1:0.8

If the numbers on either side of the colon are reversed, an aspect ratio of 10:8 becomes 8:10; a ratio of 5:4 becomes 4:5, but a ratio of 1:0.8 becomes 1:1.25.

r.e.
29-Nov-2021, 07:42
For a different view on the question discussed in this thread, see the November 2021 thread Masking a Ground Glass for Cinema Aspect Ratios (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166341-Masking-a-Ground-Glass-for-Cinema-Aspect-Ratios)

See, in particular, the first post and then post #4 and following. The table attached to post #4 shows aspect ratio applied for the practical purpose of scaling.

I don't see the point of saying that the aspect ratio of a 4x5 sheet of film is 4:5 and of an 8x10 sheet is 8:10 unless one is just being descriptive. I think that it's more useful to express the aspect ratio at its most reduced. This makes clear the commonality of 4x5 and 8x10. I also prefer to express the long side first, which is invariably how it's done for cinema/video and computer displays. As far as I'm concerned, the aspect ratio of 5x4 and 10x8 is 1.25:1. I can do practical things with that ratio, starting with comparing these two film formats and their aspect ratio to others. In the thread above, see the table attached to post #4 and the photograph attached to post #7.

xkaes
29-Nov-2021, 09:26
This "discussion" clearly illustrates why the Palestinian-Israeli situation will never be resolved.

r.e.
29-Nov-2021, 09:35
This "discussion" clearly illustrates why the Palestinian-Israeli situation will never be resolved.

Why? Leaving aside the original post, almost all of the 72 posts before my post #73 either disagree with me or suggest that I'm being eccentric. I appear to be in a minority of one, although I think that I'm just talking common sense :)

Ari
29-Nov-2021, 14:28
This "discussion" clearly illustrates why the Palestinian-Israeli situation will never be resolved.

In the spirit of this warped and twisted thread: Why pick on that situation?
Look how badly this thread derailed by itself, in the absence of religion or personal/communal history.

Bryan's answer was sufficient and correct, this needn't have gone farther than post #2.
Not his fault the OP was thick as a brick.

r.e.
29-Nov-2021, 15:05
Bryan's answer was sufficient and correct, this needn't have gone farther than post #2.
Not his fault the OP was thick as a brick.

I think that the original post raised a perfectly good question that deserved a proper answer, not dismissal. I guess I'm thick as a brick too. Nevertheless, I'm happy to reiterate what I say in post #73 and in the linked thread :)

BrianShaw
29-Nov-2021, 15:13
The question was asked 2 years ago. The OP's last visit here was March. I think this thread has served his purpose (and much more). Unless the Hatfields and McCoys want to keep feuding. :)

Ari
29-Nov-2021, 15:30
I think that the original post raised a perfectly good question that deserved a proper answer, not dismissal. I guess I'm thick as a brick too. Nevertheless, I'm happy to reiterate what I say in post #73 and in the linked thread :)

That's my point, it wasn't a dismissal, it was a simple and straightforward answer to a simple question.
The OP took personal offense to, or felt slighted by, Bryan's answer. Maybe he was hoping for a longer, more in-depth discussion?

Drew Wiley
29-Nov-2021, 16:03
Do we want to get into the aspect ratio of the Greek golden mean? They certainly understood esthetic decisions. A long knotted string might have been all they needed to determine it. But the internet was seemingly invented in the first place to make things unnecessarily complicated during cabin fever sessions. The Hatfields and McCoys have both a first and second amendment right to keep on feuding ... Just so it's not around here. Just took a picture yesterday of the remains of a neighbor's front of the house following a recent firecracker incident. Had a nice Zone 1 char on the front door, and all around that.

Alan Klein
29-Nov-2021, 19:56
For a different view on the question discussed in this thread, see the November 2021 thread Masking a Ground Glass for Cinema Aspect Ratios (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166341-Masking-a-Ground-Glass-for-Cinema-Aspect-Ratios)

See, in particular, the first post and then post #5 and following. The table attached to post #5 shows aspect ratio applied for the practical purpose of scaling.

I don't see the point of saying that the aspect ratio of a 4x5 sheet of film is 4:5 and of an 8x10 sheet is 8:10 unless one is just being descriptive. I think that it's more useful to express the aspect ratio at its most reduced. This makes clear the commonality of 4x5 and 8x10. I also prefer to express the long side first, which is invariably how it's done for cinema/video and computer displays. As far as I'm concerned, the aspect ratio of 5x4 and 10x8 is 1.25:1. I can do practical things with that ratio, starting with comparing these two film formats and their aspect ratio to others. In the thread above, see the table attached to post #5 and the photograph attached to post #8.

1.25:1 doesn't easily help you if you looking to print. 4"x5" or 8"x10" or 16"x20" is more convenient to tell you the paper you need. All those measurements are 4x5 ratio times 1x, 2x and 4x.

Drew Wiley
29-Nov-2021, 20:01
Well, I can explain it all really simply. 10X8 and 5X4 are just 8x10 and 4X5 accidentally turned sideways crossing the International Date Line.

r.e.
29-Nov-2021, 20:45
1.25:1 doesn't easily help you if you looking to print. 4"x5" or 8"x10" or 16"x20" is more convenient to tell you the paper you need. All those measurements are 4x5 ratio times 1x, 2x and 4x.

It isn't even mathematics, it's basic arithmetic. If you're shooting one of those formats, and know that you're printing to those sizes, you're presumably past having to think about aspect ratio in the first place.

I'm not suggesting that anybody should change how they think about aspect ratio. I wanted to mask 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film for particular aspect ratios (see the link in post #73), came across this thread, realised that I approach this from a perspective that differs from that of most of the posts and decided to put forward an alternate view. It might be helpful to some future readers.

Drew Bedo
29-Nov-2021, 20:49
Lets see . . . .5/4=1.25 4/5=0.8
10/8=1.25 8/10=0.8
7/5=1.4 5/7=o.71

In all sincerity, does this help?

Drew Bedo
29-Nov-2021, 20:51
I am not sure I understand the question. Maybe those ratios aren't what you need to know.

r.e.
29-Nov-2021, 22:24
I am not sure I understand the question. Maybe those ratios aren't what you need to know.

I think that it's neat to know that 4x5 and 8x10 share the same aspect ratio. Notwithstanding some of the posts in this thread, I would like to think that nobody is actually going to disagree with that. Beyond that, I don't think that you need to know anything unless you want to scale an image up or down or create an image that has a particular aspect ratio. For the latter, choice of aspect ratio is an aesthetic decision than can be driven by issues like what your subject is.

For example, no doubt you've seen both standard wide screen and anamorphic wide screen films. A standard widescreen image is notably taller than an anamorphic widescreen image. One of the reasons that Steven Spielberg shot Jurassic Park in standard widescreen is that there are dinosaurs in it and he wanted his dinosaurs to look tall and dangerous. Seriously :) Midget dinosaurs don't cut it. If you want to see the height relationship between a number of aspect ratios, see the thread linked in post #73 above, and in particular the table attached to post #4 in that thread.

If all you're doing is shooting 4x5 and deciding what standard paper size to print it on, you already know what the options are and I wouldn't worry about this.

maltfalc
30-Nov-2021, 02:00
I don't see the point of saying that the aspect ratio of a 4x5 sheet of film is 4:5 and of an 8x10 sheet is 8:10 unless one is just being descriptive. I think that it's more useful to express the aspect ratio at its most reduced. This makes clear the commonality of 4x5 and 8x10. I also prefer to express the long side first, which is invariably how it's done for cinema/video and computer displays. As far as I'm concerned, the aspect ratio of 5x4 and 10x8 is 1.25:1. I can do practical things with that ratio, starting with comparing these two film formats and their aspect ratio to others. In the thread above, see the table attached to post #5 and the photograph attached to post #8.typically people only reduce it to the smallest whole numbers, with a bit of rounding off if necessary, since that's the easiest to work with.

Drew Bedo
30-Nov-2021, 05:33
I just noticed that this thread is many yeasrs old. Does the OP care anymore?

BrianShaw
30-Nov-2021, 06:44
I just noticed that this thread is many yeasrs old. Does the OP care anymore?

See post 78; it seems to still be true.

Tin Can
30-Nov-2021, 06:50
But where are plate sizes. aspects, ratios, rules, examples

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/1_early_photography_-_sizes.htm

When did Metric sizes emerge

Expiring minds must know

abruzzi
30-Nov-2021, 07:31
typically people only reduce it to the smallest whole numbers, with a bit of rounding off if necessary, since that's the easiest to work with.

except in the cinema universe where aspect is always stated against 1, so the academy ratio is 1.375:1, widescreen flat is 1.85:1, cinemescope (anamorphic) is 2.35:1. By making all x:1, its easy to tell how they relate.

Tin Can
30-Nov-2021, 07:55
We also have old Electron Microscope sizes

I have a SS glass plate tank made for 10X10 and very old

maltfalc
30-Nov-2021, 12:55
except in the cinema universe where aspect is always stated against 1, so the academy ratio is 1.375:1, widescreen flat is 1.85:1, cinemescope (anamorphic) is 2.35:1. By making all x:1, its easy to tell how they relate.we're discussing photography here, not cinema, and even in your "exception" people still commonly refer to video aspect ratios as 16:9, 4:3, etc..

abruzzi
30-Nov-2021, 13:54
we're discussing photography here, not cinema, and even in your "exception" people still commonly refer to video aspect ratios as 16:9, 4:3, etc..

Not in the cinema world in my experience, just in the TV world.

r.e.
30-Nov-2021, 15:03
we're discussing photography here, not cinema, and even in your "exception" people still commonly refer to video aspect ratios as 16:9, 4:3, etc..

As @abruzzi points out, 16:9 and 4:3 are shorthand ways of referring specifically to High Definition and Standard Definition Television. Those ratios are used for marketing televisions (and computer displays in the case of 16:9) to consumers in preference to 1.78:1 and 1.33:1. They're also used to describe Hi-Def/Standard-Def capture areas in the marketing of consumer/prosumer hybrid cameras.

I think that how someone approaches aspect ratio depends on what they're trying to accomplish, and that whether one is talking about one photograph or 24 photographs/second is beside the point. To my mind, aspect ratio doesn't even come up as an real issue if you're just deciding whether to print a 4x5 image on 8x10 or 16x20 paper.

On the other hand, for some purposes reducing aspect ratio to its base is useful. It's also common throughout the graphic arts. I don't think that I've ever seen the Golden Rectangle ratio expressed as anything other than 1:1.618 (short side first) or 1.618:1 (long side first). Manipulating that ratio is grade school arithmetic in an era when just about everybody has a calculator in their pocket.

I made the table below because I wanted to see what I have to do with 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film to conform to several aspect ratios. The table takes landscape orientation as a given and image height as the variable. The table makes it easy to compare the resulting heights. Note how 16:9 and 4:3 (rows 5 and 8) are expressed. There's info about this table and what I'm doing with it in the thread Masking a Ground Glass for Cinema Aspect Ratios (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166341-Masking-a-Ground-Glass-for-Cinema-Aspect-Ratios).


221811

Alan Klein
30-Nov-2021, 20:00
As @abruzzi points out, 16:9 and 4:3 are shorthand ways of referring specifically to High Definition and Standard Definition Television. Those ratios are used for marketing televisions (and computer displays in the case of 16:9) to consumers in preference to 1.78:1 and 1.33:1. They're also used to describe Hi-Def/Standard-Def capture areas in the marketing of consumer/prosumer hybrid cameras.

I think that how someone approaches aspect ratio depends on what they're trying to accomplish, and that whether one is talking about one photograph or 24 photographs/second is beside the point. To my mind, aspect ratio doesn't even come up as an real issue if you're just deciding whether to print a 4x5 image on 8x10 or 16x20 paper.

On the other hand, for some purposes reducing aspect ratio to its base is useful. It's also common throughout the graphic arts. I don't think that I've ever seen the Golden Rectangle ratio expressed as anything other than 1:1.618 (short side first) or 1.618:1 (long side first). Manipulating that ratio is grade school arithmetic in an era when just about everybody has a calculator in their pocket.

I made the table below because I wanted to see what I have to do with 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film to conform to several aspect ratios. The table takes landscape orientation as a given and image height as the variable. The table makes it easy to compare the resulting heights. Note how 16:9 and 4:3 (rows 5 and 8) are expressed. There's info about this table and what I'm doing with it in the thread Masking a Ground Glass for Cinema Aspect Ratios (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166341-Masking-a-Ground-Glass-for-Cinema-Aspect-Ratios).


221811

It's not only printing that you have to be aware of these ratios. When I started shooting video clips which record at 16:9 for showing on monitors and TVs, I noticed that my still pictures created black bars on each side of the pictures. That was because still format was 4:3 in my camera or 3:2 if you shoot DSLRs. When I combine video clips and stills into a video "slide show", the switching between the 4:3 stills and the 16:9 video clips annoyed me. So I started to shoot all my stills in 16:9 so stills as well as video clips fill up the TV or monitor screens completely.

You can see how that works with this short video I downloaded to Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmwLSiS-as&t=42s

r.e.
30-Nov-2021, 21:21
It's not only printing that you have to be aware of these ratios. When I started shooting video clips which record at 16:9 for showing on monitors and TVs, I noticed that my still pictures created black bars on each side of the pictures. That was because still format was 4:3 in my camera or 3:2 if you shoot DSLRs. When I combine video clips and stills into a video "slide show", the switching between the 4:3 stills and the 16:9 video clips annoyed me. So I started to shoot all my stills in 16:9 so stills as well as video clips fill up the TV or monitor screens completely.

You can see how that works with this short video I downloaded to Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmwLSiS-as&t=42s

Exactly. The following post explains that one of my objectives is to make photographs that can be incorporated seamlessly into a film, i.e. without letterboxing or cropping the photos. I'm also interested in Chris Marker's technique in La Jetée, which Marker calls a "photo-novel": https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166341-Masking-a-Ground-Glass-for-Cinema-Aspect-Ratios&p=1624080&viewfull=1#post1624080

I also want to try 2:1, which is an aspect ratio for both still photography and some modern films, such as Green Book, the film that won the 2018 Academy Award for Best Picture. A 2:1 mask of a 5x4 sheet gives you the same size image that you get from a roll of 120 film loaded in a 612 camera or 612 roll film back. A 2:1 mask of an 10x8 sheet gives you an image that is an inch (25%) taller than a 4x10 image. The latter is actually narrower than an anamorphic widescreen image. I haven't looked into the history of 4x10, but a possible reason for its existence is that you can get two 4x10 images out of one 8x10 sheet.

Oren Grad
30-Nov-2021, 22:23
I haven't looked into the history of 4x10, but a possible reason for its existence is that you can get two 4x10 images out of one 8x10 sheet.

So far as I know, 4x10 as a commercially-offered format is a relatively recent development, and the easy cutting from a readily available format is a very plausible justification. Many of us are familiar with the classic panoramic and banquet cameras offered in 5x12, 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 formats by Korona and/or Folmer and Schwing. But I don't know of any 4x10's from that era.

Tin Can
1-Dec-2021, 05:04
I am looking back to before photography

https://fibonacci.com/art-architecture/

https://www.compulsivecontents.com/detail-event/the-golden-ratio-and-fibonacci-sequence-in-art/

https://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/artists-their-materials-and-suppliers/three-quarters-kit-cats-and-half-lengths-british-portrait-painters-and-their-canvas-sizes-1625-1850/3.-further-standard-sizes